New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[squirrlygirl]

did I make it? am I post 1000?

darn

I hope MS takes notice that there's a bit of hysteria going on that might not be warranted and doesn't act based on this thread.

 

[squirrlygirl]

How do you know a room will be available on Jan 25 (11-7 for DEC 25) to start the ressie? Anyone that called on the 24th or sooner is in line and dead man walking already.

Walking a week at a time may work as well (if so, it would be a lot easier), but regardless, for NYE it still would need to be walked to be sure. I dont think the hardliners care if they walk DBD, its the point of the insanity of do you choose to to do it, and when do you start?

I never said wait until the 25th. I said call a week before so the 25th is you're 7th day. You start the reservation at the same time as every other highly umm... concerned person, or heck, even a week before that if you're highly, ummm.... concerned... but there's no need to walk a day at a time.

 

[robinb]

So if you feel the need to walk your reservation, why can't you do it week by week and just keep your overlapping one day? As soon as your room is taken out of inventory, it won't be available to be booked by anyone else until that 8th day, but you can extend it for a week on the 7th day where no one else can.

You're a genius! No need to call day by day! But I still need more points than I really have .

 

[robinb]

Hi, I have read MOST of this thread and have been trying to FIGURE it all out! I have read a few posts(like this one) about BOOKING EXTRA nights and then canceling to actually get the nights you want BEFORE anyone else can?? Will THIS be ALLOWED by DVC-MS?? Because THIS is what seems UNFAIR to me,people trying to manipulate the system?? Thanks for any clarification of this. Joan

It no more or less "UNFAIR" than giving someone who checks in on 12/25/09 "dibs" on NYE over those people who want to spend Christmas with family back at home and can't check in until days later.

 

[jade1]

I never said wait until the 25th. I said call a week before so the 25th is you're 7th day. You start the reservation at the same time as every other highly umm... concerned person, or heck, even a week before that if you're highly, ummm.... concerned... but there's no need to walk a day at a time.

Sorry, I assumed when you said:

"If you book 11+7 to get NYE when you really want to start your stay NYE and then some days, then book days 1-7, with 7 being NYE."

that you meant Jan 25, which would put NYE as your last day. Apparently you meant call Jan 18, with your last day as Dec 25th, then bump that a week to get Dec 31st?

Regardless your point is to walk by weeks instead of days correct?

 

[squirrlygirl]

Sorry, I assumed when you said:

"If you book 11+7 to get NYE when you really want to start your stay NYE and then some days, then book days 1-7, with 7 being NYE."

that you meant Jan 25, which would put NYE as your last day. Apparently you meant call Jan 18, with your last day as Dec 25th, then bump that a week to get Dec 31st?

Regardless your point is to walk by weeks instead of days correct?

Yes, and yes.

 

[RobDoc]

I didn't say we should not be discussing the potential effects of the change, as long as it's healthy discourse.

I just think people calling for the policy to be immediately revoked is premature. People have contacted DVC to express their individual concerns (I expressed mine yesterday when DVC called me in regards to my email).

Let's give DVC management a chance to receive, process and evaluate the member feedback and see if they would tweak the new policy. Let's give this some time to play out and see what affects this new policy really has, and what (if anything) DVC implements to address any shortcomings.

The policy has already been implemented and from Day 1, MS was inconsistent with the explanation given to members - and the only source for ANY information was via phone to MS since , at that time, nothing was posted on the member's site. Even now, precious little information has been provided on the member's site and MS is still being inconsistent in their explanation about how the new policy works and also in their application of their own policy.

Thus, DVC has forced members to decide on their own how this change will affect ability to utilize their ownership. Obviously some have already accepted the change, based on their personal reservation habits and others are expressing concern related to how they like to use their membership. Neither is wrong, IMO.

Why is MS telling members one thing (can't add to a reservation until 11 months from the 8th day) yet allowing members to add Day 8 the next day? You can't have it both ways. If an existing reservation can't be extending until 11 months from the 8th day - then that should be the policy and members should NOT be allowed to extend by calling daily. (Even that would not eliminate members accomplishing the same end result if MS will continue to allow modifications to existing reservations and then linking multiple reservations together.)

Should that not be a topic for discussion, or should we give DVC management "a chance to receive, process and evaluate the member feedback and see if they would tweak the new policy" ? This policy was CREATED by DVC management - why shouldn't we expect them to have already thought this thru - knowing the complete history of the way members have used the reservation system over the past 16+ years?

Why is it necessary to give DVC time to "tweak" their own policy before members express themselves to MS, even to the point of suggesting that the policy be "immediately revoked"? If that's how a member feels about the change, why discourage members from expressing their feelings? In the meantime - as DVC receives, evaluates and processes the member feedback, the inconsistency and lack of information continues - even to the point of sending canned responses to the very feedback they are supposed to be considering. I have now sent three emails to member satisfaction and have recieved the same canned response for each one. I have sent follow-up emails requesting that they actually read my comments and finally did receive a note in response from someone saying they would forward my comments on to the "Member Satisfaction" team - where my email was sent in the first place. That was on Tuesday and I've had no correspondence since.

If we are to believe the explanation provided by DVC thus far, this change was made in response to member comments/complaints. Isn't that what is happening right now?

 

[mrdiscranky]

Will THIS be ALLOWED by DVC-MS??

Forgive me for not reading every post in this thread - but do we know we will be allowed to drop days at the beginning of a reservation? Do we know they will allow us to add days on the end of the reservation? Seems to be they could kill the whole walking reservation issue by not allowing one or both of these.

The problem is there is NO (none, nada, zip) "fair" system for allocating scare resources. No matter how you set up the system, more people want NYE rooms than there are rooms. Somebody is going to get left out. Most of us believe the more-fair system is the one where we get what we want and are never in the group that gets left out.

PS - If nothing else, this incident will hopefully kill the notion that DVC is run by geniuses who never get anything wrong. Either they are lying about how carefully they thought out this new policy, or they are chowderheads.

 

[dvcnewgirl]

Good for you. I own at BVW and AKV because I DO want the BW view and I like the concierge, too, when I can get it. Otherwise I want savanna view for sure. Is it elitist to want to stay where I own/like and not at OKW or SSR where I don't own because I don't like them? Fine with me, then I'm "elitist."

Ditto! I bought BWV to stay in Standard View studio at BWV. Otherwise I would have bought somewhere else..

 

[RobDoc]

Forgive me for not reading every post in this thread - but do we know we will be allowed to drop days at the beginning of a reservation? Do we know they will allow us to add days on the end of the reservation? Seems to be they could kill the whole walking reservation issue by not allowing one or both of these.

Thus far, there have been many posts by members reporting that they have been able to both add days to extend the original 7 day reservation and also to cancel dates at the beginning of the same reservation. This has been allowed in spite of the information given to other members that an existing 7 day reservation could not be extended until 11 months from the 8th day. Thus the reason for the volume of posts about rolling/walking reservations.

 

[RachelTori]

At this point, I'm unsure how/when/if this "new" policy will impact my family, or if I should even be upset by these changes.

What bothers me is that we members were not forewarned about the new policy. I believe Disney should have given us at least a 30 day notice before the change would take affect -- and a FULL explanation of EXACTLY how this new policy would work!

Instead, they just sprung it on us. I sincerely hope this a not an indication of how things are going to be in the future.

 

[Laurabearz]

At this point, I'm unsure how/when/if this "new" policy will impact my family, or if I should even be upset by these changes.

What bothers me is that we members were not forewarned about the new policy. I believe Disney should have given us at least a 30 day notice before the change would take affect -- and a FULL explanation of EXACTLY how this new policy would work!

Instead, they just sprung it on us. I sincerely hope this a not an indication of how things are going to be in the future.

I tottally agree!

 

[jarestel]

Instead, they just sprung it on us. I sincerely hope this a not an indication of how things are going to be in the future.

DVC typically has not consulted with the membership before instituting changes anyway. There have been some instances of advance notification of the implementation, going non-smoking, change in banking rules, etc. I don't know what practical effect advance notification would have had in this instance.

 

[sssteele]

I've already read over 1000 posts - I may as well continue.

 

[TheDISneyFamily]

I've been mulling all of this over in my head and I'm still upset about the whole thing. Yes, I've sent my emails to MS and no, I haven't heard a thing back from them yet. It's frustrating, to say the least. The question is - Why wasn't there any formal announcement of this new booking policy? Love it or hate it - it doesn't matter. The fact is, a MAJOR change has already been implemented before any of us have been notified. I can't help but get the feeling this decision was 'rushed' and put into place quickly before they announce and start selling at the Contemporary. I have to admit, I was all excited to drop another load of cash on more points when I finally could buy BLT, but now I'm not so sure. This has been a big mistake on DVC's part. I know they can do whatever they want - the key issue here is the potential loss of customer satisfaction and loyalty. I thought DVC was better than this. I didn't buy into just any timeshare. I could have spent our money (a considerable amount) at any number of other vacation properties. I can't help but feel let down by DVC.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

I am taking, you are a SSR owner, if so, this new policy has made it even harder for you, and other non owners of the smaller resorts, to transfer your reservation over at the 7 month window. If, you don't understand this, this is part of what the uproar is about. This makes "Buying where you want to stay" even more important than ever before. If owers, of the Home Resort are worried about getting a reservation at the 11 month window, then how will the 7 month window work? This new system was not thought out at all.

My initial thought about this system is that it will probably be less stressful for those trying to change reservations at the 7 month window. No more posts wondering "should I call DBD and switch if that day is available but what if the next one is not?" Now when you call on Day 1 of the 7 month window you will know if availability of the first day is just a fluke or if you can string more than 1 night together at the non home resort.

Of course, this may have been the same 7 month reservation that would have been avialable even without DBD booking. If so, all this does is reduce the stress of deciding whether to book DBD at 7 months.

My second thought is that this system, as currently implemented, may actually decrease the ability of some members to switch at 7 months. For example, someone own lots of OKW points and 50 WLV points and wants to stay 7 nights at WLV the week before Thanksgiving. They use 46 points and book 3 nights in a Studio Sat - M in the 11 month window. Lets call Sat Day 1.

At the 7 month window for Day 1, they call MS and ask to extend the 3 day reservation by adding 4 more nights using OKW points. It looks like this should be possible because it would be a single reservation number stretching no more than 7 nights out. For all the reasons discussed in many other posts, only this member can book those next 4 nights. Any other member calling that day will be told that room is unavailable.

Thus, booking a few home resort nights may help you get an edge over others with only non-home resort points. Those small add-on at multiple resorts may have a benefit after all! -- Suzanne

 

[jar]

I've read just a smattering of the 1000+ plus postings in the past 6 days so I'm sure that my views have been expressed by others, but I'll add them nonetheless.

Two thoughts came to my mind when I read about the new policy and the comments on this chain:

1) It is absolutely not an "abuse" for those who want a 4-night reservation to call 3 days earlier (i.e., at 11 months and 3 days out) and book 7 days and later cancel the first 3. It merely puts them on even footing for the 4 days that they want with those who want the same 4 days but are arriving 3 days earlier. For example, if I wanted to stay from December 25-29, why should I have to wait until January 25 when the rooms I want will surely be gone on January 22 because others are calling for December 22-29?

2) In light of #1, DVC will still be getting lots of day-by-day calls and even some extra administrative burden because the strategy that makes the most sense in the above scenario is to call on January 19 to book December 19-26 and then tack on day-by-day as would have happened under the old system. Then make an additional call to cancel the unneeded nights (having tied them up in the process). This is actually worse for everyone.

I don't think that I am going to be one of the people "abusing" the system this way as others would accuse since I don't expect to travel during the peakest of periods, but for those that do, I don't see how they are going to get prime reservations any other way and it's not right to call them abusers for doing it this way given that Disney has forced it with their change by significantly reducing the ability to get a particular "hot" night at the 11-month window unless it was booked at 11-months plus 7 days.

 

[Paradise East]

Just a thought ...

DVC says this new ressie format was brought about by member input as stated in several responses from the special CR task force as mentioned in earlier postings. I think that is true.

As I see it the biggest complaints are the lack of notification of the change and poor "thinking thru the issue by CR" before implimentation.

I submit that CR DID NOT plan on thinking thru the ramifications because they are the operators of the system, not the users.

As such, they would not have any idea (most anyway) of the different ways the system could be tweaked and they have been having an education in how the old system worked and how the new system will effect menbers from the email and snail mail received not to mention they, supposedly, are monitoring these Forums.

My feeling is the system will be tweaked in the near future after the "suits" have a better handle on the ideas and worries expressed on these forums.

As somebody said .. "You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

Cheers
Dave

 

[alldiz]

Just a thought ...

DVC says this new ressie format was brought about by member input as stated in several responses from the special CR task force as mentioned in earlier postings. I think that is true.

As I see it the biggest complaints are the lack of notification of the change and poor "thinking thru the issue by CR" before implimentation.

I submit that CR DID NOT plan on thinking thru the ramifications because they are the operators of the system, not the users.

As such, they would not have any idea (most anyway) of the different ways the system could be tweaked and they have been having an education in how the old system worked and how the new system will effect menbers from the email and snail mail received not to mention they, supposedly, are monitoring these Forums.

My feeling is the system will be tweaked in the near future after the "suits" have a better handle on the ideas and worries expressed on these forums.

As somebody said .. "You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time".Cheers
Dave

Exactly......ie....plastic/paper mugs in studios.
The real problem is the usual and customary COMMUNICATION skills that DVC seems to implement repeatedly.
Kerri

 

[squirrlygirl]

DVC typically has not consulted with the membership before instituting changes anyway. There have been some instances of advance notification of the implementation, going non-smoking, change in banking rules, etc. I don't know what practical effect advance notification would have had in this instance.

Advance notification that included details probably would've cut down on the length of this thread